How Snowden was identified as Ars user TheTrueHOOHA

June 12, early afternoon
Reuters publishes a profile indicating that Snowden used to use the online username "The True HOOHA."

June 12, afternoon
Anthony DeRosa publishes an article noting that hundreds of posts were written on Ars Technica forums by a user named TheTrueHOOHA, with many biographical details that line up with Snowden.

June 12, Later afernoonBusiness Insider and Buzzfeed both publish articles confirming that TheTrueHOOHA is Snowden, noting that he published photos of himself on Ars and elsewhere.

Ed Snowden was 23 years old when he moved to Geneva in 2007. Soon after arriving, he was looking for a taste of home.

It wasn't that he was unhappy. Snowden's life was becoming the adventure he'd been looking for. Moving to Switzerland hadn't been his first choice—his dream picks were in Asia and Australia—but it certainly wasn't bad. Hired by the CIA and granted a diplomatic cover, he was a regular old IT guy whose life was elevated by a hint of international intrigue.

Snowden would soon move into a four-bedroom apartment covered by the agency. He'd blow off parking tickets, citing diplomatic immunity. He'd travel the continent. He befriended an Estonian rock star ("the funniest part is he's a SUPER NERD"), raced motorcycles in Italy, took in the Muslim call to prayer from his Sarajevo hotel room, and formed opinions about the food and the women in Bosnia, in Romania, in Spain.

But as his first spring dawned in Switzerland, it must have felt cold, foreign, and expensive. Two days after his arrival in Switzerland, Snowden logged onto #arsificial, a channel on Ars Technica's public Internet Relay Chat (IRC) server. He'd been frequenting this space for a few months, chatting with whomever happened to be hanging out.

< TheTrueHOOHA>

You guys can't say I look gay anymore.

< User1>

you look gay

< TheTrueHOOHA>

not anymore. I'm living in switzerland. i'm the straightest looking man inthe country

< User2>

rolpix

< TheTrueHOOHA>

as soon as my camera makes it here. :P

< TheTrueHOOHA>

you guys wouldn't believe how expensive shit is here, either

< TheTrueHOOHA>

you can't get tap water in restaraunts

< User2>

some examples, please

< TheTrueHOOHA>

they make you buy it in bottles

< TheTrueHOOHA>

glass bottles. 5 bucks a pop

< User2>

you buy the tap water?

< TheTrueHOOHA>

hamburgers are $15

The $15 hamburgers weren't even as good as McDonald's; they tasted "like greasy cardboard." Everything was written in French and measured in meters ("God I hate metric," wrote Snowden. "Why can't they use real numbers over here?"). The food packages had "kilojoules" listed on them. ("I'm not a battery!") Europeans couldn't even play movies right. ("They put an intermission in 300.")

Snowden logged on to the public IRC chat room with the same username he used across the Web: TheTrueHOOHA. The chat room was a place he would return to on dozens of occasions over his years in Switzerland, and his writings fill in details about the man who may go down as the most famous leaker in US history. Over the years that he hung out in #arsificial, Snowden went from being a fairly insulated American to being a man of the world. He would wax philosophical about money, politics, and in one notable exchange, about his uncompromising views about government leakers.

Four years later, Snowden took a job with a government contractor for the specific purpose of gathering secret information on domestic spying being done by the National Security Agency (NSA). In May, he hopped a plane to Hong Kong before the NSA knew where he was going. Once there, Snowden began a process of leaking top-secret documents to journalists. Snowden's first leak confirmed what activists had suspected but couldn't prove: there was a dragnet government surveillance program collecting information on every American's phone calls.

The chat logs are the most detailed view available into the formation of a man who has been hailed as a hero, and condemned as a traitor by leaders in his own country. In his public statements, Snowden is smooth and uncompromising, radiating intelligence. Snowden has insisted the focus remain on the leaked documents, not him. But he has also kept himself in the spotlight, speaking to three newspapers, doing live Q&As, and dribbling out more documents over time. Intentional or not, Snowden has maximized media attention. He is a Deep Throat for the social media age. Revealing American secrets is not enough; he has applied to be their chief interpreter as well.

An acerbic user, at home on #arsificial

IRC isn't Twitter. Much of the talk in chat channels isn't much more elevated than barroom banter, and Snowden's conversations as TheTrueHOOHA are no exception. But his personality and his beliefs do shine through. IRC chats can hold meaningful revelations about public figures, and Ars has used them as a reportingsource before. Snowden was the kind of bar buddy willing to get into a political argument and never give up, even if he pissed off the whole room.

If IRC is a bar, then the #arsificial channel is the back room occupied by drinkers who feel the front is just too stuffy for them. Officially unofficial, #arsificial was created by users who chafed at the moderation in other Ars chatrooms. "This channel is unsupported and has no rules as such," reads an automated message sent to users upon entry. Unlike on other Ars channels, for instance, chatter veering into racism or sexism wouldn't get a user silenced. "Under no circumstances should anyone complain to #mods about conduct in this channel," read the entry message. "Anyone taking any complaint about #arsificial to #mods will receive a ban from #arsificial."
It was an online destination Snowden would return to dozens of times over the next four years, often remaining quiet for hours on end before engaging in bursts of dialogue. The chat snippets show a strident personality, and at times, the inchoate ideology of a man who would ultimately take drastic measures to fight government secrecy. In #arsificial, Snowden was frequently someone ready to go to the mat for his beliefs—even when no one was on his side.

And he could be abrasive. Snowden didn't short stocks just to make money—he did it because it was the right thing to do. He saw himself as a paladin of the markets, bringing "liquidity" to all. As for those who didn't agree with him about the rightness of the gold standard or the need to eliminate Social Security, they weren't just mistaken—they were "retards."

Four years ago, Snowden presented an image of always being sure of himself, sometimes to the point of seeming arrogant. He often thought he was the smartest guy in the room, and he let others know it.

The Ars IRC server doesn't log conversations, and there are no official transcripts of any discussions on that server. However, after learning that Snowden appeared to be an Ars user, we received chat logs from multiple longtime users who recalled IRC conversations with the user known as TheTrueHOOHA. That IRC user claimed he was the registered Ars user TheTrueHOOHA, who posted nearly 800 posts in Ars forums, including biographical information and photos that match Snowden.

Any handle can be adopted in IRC. However, such "identity theft," while theoretically possible, is unheard of. These IRC remarks—like the Ars forum posts—correlate precisely to publicly known facts about Snowden's life.

Life in Switzerland

By April, a few months into his Swiss adventure, the chats show that Snowden was warming to the country. "Yeah… It's pretty cool so far," he wrote. "The girls are gorgeous, too. Oh, and prostitution is legal."

He detailed cultural observations about Switzerland, and his travels elsewhere, to anyone who happened to be in the chat room. "Jesus christ are the swiss rich," he wrote. "The fucking mcdonald's workers make more than I do. They make like 50,000 franc a year."

< TheTrueHOOHA>

the roads are 35 inches wide

< TheTrueHOOHA>

with 9000 cars on them, two tram tracks, and a bus lane

< TheTrueHOOHA>

and a bike lane

< TheTrueHOOHA>

i imagine mirrors get clipped off all the time

< TheTrueHOOHA>

I'm afraid I'd bump into someone and have to pay for it.

< User3>

do they have a large immigrant population doing the lower-class work?

< TheTrueHOOHA>

Yeah.lots of unidentifiable southeast asian people and eastern europeans who don't speak french or english

< TheTrueHOOHA>

but don't get me wrong -- this place is amazing

< TheTrueHOOHA>

it's like living in a postcard

< User4>

TheTrueHOOHA: where are you? .ch?

< TheTrueHOOHA>

it's just nightmarishly expensive and horrifically classist

< TheTrueHOOHA>

Yeah. Geneva, Switzerland

< User4>

wicked!

< TheTrueHOOHA>

Yeah... it's pretty cool so far

It was cool, but Snowden was often critical of the Swiss. An average visitor to Switzerland talks about how great the chocolate is; Snowden saw a country of overpaid racists.

He admired those who managed to survive on the margins of society. In Switzerland, it was the hardscrabble intelligence of the Nigerian refugees that impressed him. "It's that whole necessity thing," he asserted. "Motherfuckers have been there like eight months and speak all three languages. Not counting romansch, which doesn't count. Ever."

And he kept coming back to #arsificial to share his adventures and observations.

< TheTrueHOOHA>

everybody hates gypsies apparently

< User5>

what's there not to hate about gypsies

< TheTrueHOOHA>

poor gypsies

< User6>

Gypsies are the niggers of Europe. If not worse.

< User6>

I honestly don't have anything against them... But everyone has such a kneejerk hateful reaction to them

< TheTrueHOOHA>

yeah, i see that ALL the time in switz.

< TheTrueHOOHA>

like, some crime happens ANYWHERE

< TheTrueHOOHA>

immediately "those goddamned gypsies!"

< User6>

[User5]: like I said, I didn't have much experience with them, besides seeing them dirty, begging on the streets.

< TheTrueHOOHA>

"it wasn't a gypsy"

< TheTrueHOOHA>

"oh, it must be those fucking muslims!" "no? then those goddamned africans!"

< TheTrueHOOHA>

i have never, EVER seen a people more racist than the swiss
jesus god they look down on EVERYONE. even each other.

< TheTrueHOOHA>

you know who i liked?

< TheTrueHOOHA>

the italians. man. friendly people. fucking crazy, but good people.

< User7>

we don't have ghettos in the UK

< TheTrueHOOHA>

sure you do

< TheTrueHOOHA>

i went to london just last yearit's where all of your muslims live
I didn't want to get out of the car.

< User7>

no, that's Bradford

< TheTrueHOOHA>

I thought I had gotten off of plane in the wrong country
I don't know where it was, but it was by London City Airport and it was terrifying

< User8>

same thing in France

< User7>

TheTrueHOOHA: east London
yeah, a lot of ethnic groups have settled there

558 Reader Comments

"I suspect there are a certain set of people downvoting posts questioning ars' journalistic integrity here. I won't say who, but I'm sure you can guess."

They're called "people who don't support those attention whores who are too busy questioning Ars' journalistic integrity to understand the whole story"

I support Snowden and his whistleblowing. I hope he is granted asylum and lands somewhere safe. But I support knowing more about the man, the myth, the legend. Ars is doing due dilligence in covering the story. Not all stories have been perfect, but they have been worthwhile.

A lot of people seem to believe that, since Snowden seems to have been a former Ars member, that he should be granted special priviledges by Ars. I strongly disagree. In my view, it makes Ars' need to cover the story all the greater.

His right to privacy of his personal life went up in smoke the minute he outed himself.

Why?

Because he made himself a public figure, and that makes anything he did in public view, including posting things on or via the internet, fair game for exploration, news, articles, etc.... and anything in his private non-public life fair game for exploration for exploration, news, articles, etc...

Sorry, but I do not agree. He might be a public figure now, but public figures have rights to privacy as well as non-public figures. Anybody has.

Since irc logs basically already are public, I'm fine with publishing excerpts from those. But there are still dozens of subjects I would consider off limits. Finding and respecting the boundaries distinguishes a good journalist from a bad one.

No, they do not have a right to privacy when that public figure made their self a public figure by committing a notorious or infamous act and deliberately plays it out in public view for the expressed purpose of public view then uses his "private" life as some sort of support for his "motivation" credibility. Snowden gave up his "rights to privacy" the moment he made his "private" life credibility support for his "motivation"

No one twisted his arm to reveal his girlfriend, no one twisted his arm to reveal that he premeditated his crime, no one twisted his arm to reveal any of his history, no one twisted his arm and made him give interviews and reveal personal private aspects of his life. He made his privacy relevant and not off limits by introducing aspects of it him self.

Don't be sorry that you don't agree, I didn't ask you to agree and you don't have to agree so there is nothing to be sorry for.

Offering some justification for the subject and materials of the article, Mullin states: "The chat logs are the most detailed view available into the formation of a man who has been hailed as a hero, and condemned as a traitor by leaders in his own country." (p.1) The tense remaining ambiguous, Mullin further asserts: "Much of the talk in chat channels isn't much more elevated than barroom banter, and Snowden's conversations as TheTrueHOOHA are no exception. But his personality and his beliefs do shine through. IRC chats can hold meaningful revelations about public figures... ." (p.1)

And yet, towards the end of the article, the author considers: "The IRC logs don't explain the chasm between the Snowden who disdained leakers and the Snowden who became a leaker himself in 2013." (p.3) Indeed, Mullin confesses: "TheTrueHOOHA's last known logon to #arsificial was in May 2009, just over four years ago. The Snowden seen in these chats is not the man we see today. Snowden clearly had to cross some kind of personal Rubicon in order to leave his life behind." (p.3)

As such, and with comments attributed to Snowden between 2007 and 2009 appearing at odds with more recent statements made by Snowden through the Guardian and other sources (and assuming, for argument's sake, that an understanding of Snowden himself is pertinent), how is their publication at Ars relevant, timely, necessary, or newsworthy in any respect? Do any of the statements uncovered within IRC logs provide substantial affirmations or contradictions to statements made by Snowden as to question his reliability as a source or the varsity of any claim he has made thus far? Indeed, how does this article provide any meaningful insight or understanding into the broader discourse pertaining to the disclosure of secret surveillance programs? Given this is a "feature story" and the product of an editorial process, in what ways is this article in any way consistent with Ars' approach and philosophy regarding technology journalism that has, until very recently, produced otherwise critical and insightful articles a number of subjects?

Having been a reader for many years, this is the first time I am greatly concerned by the integrity and quality of works published at Ars Technica.

Napster sure has changed since I first used it. Man, I had no idea it was this smooth! Back when I made the first post about it (I dunno, several months ago), it was pretty weak. Too bad it's so overloaded now.

That wouldn't be ironic, it would be terrible and a serious problem, except for the fact that it isn't remotely true.

The author included chat messages Snowden sent to a friend. While the forum was not inherently private, the user had a reasonable expectation that his messages would not be republished to millions of people. Couple this story with other Ars pieces that have divulged Snowden's messages, photos and other account details. It becomes clear, then, that Ars is not fully honoring its user's privacy.

That wouldn't be ironic, it would be terrible and a serious problem, except for the fact that it isn't remotely true.

The author included chat messages Snowden sent to a friend. While the forum was not inherently private, the user had a reasonable expectation that his messages would not be republished to millions of people. Couple this story with other Ars pieces that have divulged Snowden's messages, photos and other account details. It becomes clear, then, that Ars is not fully honoring its user's privacy.

In that same context, you aren't fully honoring your own privacy by commenting publically because it just got "republished" to "millions" of people.

In that same context, you aren't fully honoring your own privacy by commenting publically because it just got "republished" to "millions" of people.

While I'm flattered that you think my comments here might be interesting to millions of people, I have to disagree. I'm pretty sure that a feature story on the front page of a major publication, which may be picked up and redistributed by other publications, has considerably more traction.

That wouldn't be ironic, it would be terrible and a serious problem, except for the fact that it isn't remotely true.

The author included chat messages Snowden sent to a friend. While the forum was not inherently private, the user had a reasonable expectation that his messages would not be republished to millions of people. Couple this story with other Ars pieces that have divulged Snowden's messages, photos and other account details. It becomes clear, then, that Ars is not fully honoring its user's privacy.

If you think that a public IRC channel has any expectation of privacy at all associated with it, well, let me tell you that you are grossly mistaken. It's one step below going into the public square with a megaphone. There are plenty of ways to chat with a friend that don't involve broadcasting your messages over an open channel. Why this specific medium should be considered as private is beyond me.

The story contained no private messages, to friends or otherwise. All of the Ars content used in the piece was fully public. And none of the uses at all conflicted with our privacy policy in any way.

Everybody knows the policy, thats not the matter. Its just that the reader base you guys had built (and seemingly the forum community as well) had higher standards for this publication. When you consistently publish seemingly ethical, objective and well-justified articles for years, people get ideas about this place. Suddently things change drastically and our little feathers get rustler about it. I seriously doubt the guys involved in pushing this article didn't know it would happen.

On another note, the moderation here sure cracks me up. 'Trolling' used as a blanket term that now can mean just about anything. Man, Ars Gossipa sure is cracking down on evildoers this morning.

Everybody should know by now that you should have no expectation that a community that you join and support will not do some internet detective work to find out your real name when you become famous and then write a clickbait article about how expensive you think swiss cheeseburgers are and how you thought Europeans were all racists when you were 23. How can democracy be expected to function without this valuable 4th pillar? How else can we know meaningless trivia about figures in the public light?!

However, I, like arunka007, feel that the "celebrity" aspect of reporting, which I perceive as having become significantly more prominent in journalism these days, is at best a distraction from the facts (and actual "news"). Every discussion these days basically turns into a giant ad hominem/soundboard using opinions about the *person* to justify positions on the *actions*, and articles like this don't help.

Indeed, the background of Rosa Parks was tremendously important for her case. Right activists considered similar and prior cases of civil disobedience but they had to discard those because, for instance, a lady who did the same was pregnant and unmarried, which could prove to be difficult for succeeding before the media, the jury and a judge .

Rosa Parks was selected for the cause because she was an outstanding and respectful citizen , which highlighted the unfairness of segregation laws

So yes, her background and who she was, was very important for the media and the civil rights movement. She was brave enough to face prison and public scrutiny

Don't you see that you are providing an example of the very point I made in the paragraph above?

LOL yes!!

May be that " articles like this don't help." for your cause, on the contrary .Sorry, you have to get over it

"My" cause?

The only "cause" I have here is the notion that it shouldn't have mattered if Rosa Parks was wed or unwed, pregnant or not - that the injustice or justice of the situation should have been judged independent of that. ... and the same applies to Ed Snowden.

To be honest I dont care if it was a serial killer that came out with this information it will still be relevant information.

A little ridiculous, but agreed. The info would still be valid.

But would you honestly expect no one to talk about the fact that he's a serial killer? Because that's just head-in-the-sand ludicrous. Of course they'd talk about it.

And yet, it wouldn't change the leaks. You can do both. We should do both. It's the 4th estate, not Snowden's personal PR team.

Im sure people will talk about it. We have a nation built up around lies and distortions. We can see it in the press as many journalist are doing there best to attack the people behind the leaks. Its important to understand that this is a well known divide and conquer tactic. You get enough people reacting to there own fear and judgements you have a nation of people divided on the importance of Who and conquered on the importance of the What, When, and How and Why.

Id hope that Ars would look at the bigger picture, which is the idea that something has to change with the power structures in this country. These things cant change if we have news organizations contributing to the manipulation tactics the power structures use to keep us divided. Its the whole reason why we are in the state we are in simple because we cant stand together on truth and we allow ourselves to be manipulated by media groups who have ill intentions further made worse by reputable media groups like yourself.

Ars we are in one of the most important times in our history, people are finally waking up to the truth and taking a stand to the corruption. You can no longer sit by and say that we should publish something simply because its interesting and worth mentioning. You have a responsibility to consider the larger picture. You have to make a choice to either help and bring people together on the important stuff or decide to divide people on hot button issues. If we have a country of people that can stand together on the truth of what is happening right now we can stop this government in there tracks.

So yes I do expect people to be talking about the a range of issues that the leaks brought out, but id hoped that the leaks would be the focus and the reason why the government has chosen to lie about it.

Shame because the Snowden supporters are realizing he's an egocentric douche?

I don't think that's Snowden, that's just IRC. It requires a kind of macho Internet dude mentality that drives me away from all but one anime channel I hang in.

I don't think Snowden is douche, I think he's a hero. But he's also a regular person, and I don't think anyone can expect him to be flawless. The Ars article doesn't attack him, it leaves you to make your own conclusions about his personality.

Ego maniac or not, he has just become one of the most wanted people on earth. That has to suck, but we can thank him for making that choice.

How is the oat of secrecy more important then the corruption of our government?

I don't quite understand why people say he is a hero. He took an oath of secrecy with the intention of violating it. That is not right.

Whats more important the oath or telling the truth about a government that does not work for its own people?

However, I, like arunka007, feel that the "celebrity" aspect of reporting, which I perceive as having become significantly more prominent in journalism these days, is at best a distraction from the facts (and actual "news"). Every discussion these days basically turns into a giant ad hominem/soundboard using opinions about the *person* to justify positions on the *actions*, and articles like this don't help.

Indeed, the background of Rosa Parks was tremendously important for her case. Right activists considered similar and prior cases of civil disobedience but they had to discard those because, for instance, a lady who did the same was pregnant and unmarried, which could prove to be difficult for succeeding before the media, the jury and a judge .

Rosa Parks was selected for the cause because she was an outstanding and respectful citizen , which highlighted the unfairness of segregation laws

So yes, her background and who she was, was very important for the media and the civil rights movement. She was brave enough to face prison and public scrutiny

Don't you see that you are providing an example of the very point I made in the paragraph above?

LOL yes!!

May be that " articles like this don't help." for your cause, on the contrary .Sorry, you have to get over it

However, I, like arunka007, feel that the "celebrity" aspect of reporting, which I perceive as having become significantly more prominent in journalism these days, is at best a distraction from the facts (and actual "news"). Every discussion these days basically turns into a giant ad hominem/soundboard using opinions about the *person* to justify positions on the *actions*, and articles like this don't help.

Indeed, the background of Rosa Parks was tremendously important for her case. Right activists considered similar and prior cases of civil disobedience but they had to discard those because, for instance, a lady who did the same was pregnant and unmarried, which could prove to be difficult for succeeding before the media, the jury and a judge .

Rosa Parks was selected for the cause because she was an outstanding and respectful citizen , which highlighted the unfairness of segregation laws

So yes, her background and who she was, was very important for the media and the civil rights movement. She was brave enough to face prison and public scrutiny

Don't you see that you are providing an example of the very point I made in the paragraph above?

LOL yes!!

May be that " articles like this don't help." for your cause, on the contrary .Sorry, you have to get over it

How can getting more information do anything but help find the truth? There was nothing dishonest in this article, nothing inflammatory, it was helping to paint a picture of the kind of person who would leak information. The only way you could see this as being a bad thing is if you think his words will somehow take away from the leak, which is ridiculous. There are two stories here, the leak is one, the other is what would drive a person to do this.

That wouldn't be ironic, it would be terrible and a serious problem, except for the fact that it isn't remotely true.

The author included chat messages Snowden sent to a friend. While the forum was not inherently private, the user had a reasonable expectation that his messages would not be republished to millions of people. Couple this story with other Ars pieces that have divulged Snowden's messages, photos and other account details. It becomes clear, then, that Ars is not fully honoring its user's privacy.

What "messages" do you speak of? IRC is not a messaging system, it is a relay chatting system, meaning that it acts as a live forum for people to speak their mind based on the topics of the channel. Meaning, this is a public forum and should never be conceived as a private forum.

While IRC channels can be made private, require a password to enter, and whatever other security practices are put into place, unless the channel requires a signed terms of service, you should still never consider what you say to be private, people keep logs.

The only "cause" I have here is the notion that it shouldn't have mattered if Rosa Parks was wed or unwed, pregnant or not - that the injustice or justice of the situation should have been judged independent of that. ... and the same applies to Ed Snowden.

Oh so what you're telling us is that you live in this fantasy realm where no one cares about the individuals, only the actions they take. Perhaps you feel this about historical figures as well such as George Washington, Martin Luther King Jr, John Lennon?

Maybe it is the problem with humanity in which collectively it idolizes figures that perform a novel action, and not so much the action itself.

The only "cause" I have here is the notion that it shouldn't have mattered if Rosa Parks was wed or unwed, pregnant or not - that the injustice or justice of the situation should have been judged independent of that. ... and the same applies to Ed Snowden.

Oh so what you're telling us is that you live in this fantasy realm where no one cares about the individuals, only the actions they take. Perhaps you feel this about historical figures as well such as George Washington, Martin Luther King Jr, John Lennon?

Maybe it is the problem with humanity in which collectively it idolizes figures that perform a novel action, and not so much the action itself.

If the internet had been invented on 1850 and IRC servers had ran on steam-powered 2-bit clusters with 128-bit total memory, you'd had Ars Steampunka quoting Ghandi about what he said during his early life, born in privilege and all that. Maybe he said something bad about gypsies at one point because some gysy waiter didn't prepare him a proper cup of tea one. Or making ridiculous in-depth profiles about Churchill and highlighting his bigotry during his youth, with interviews of black people he personally beat up. Or outed IRC logs with thousands of frat-jokes attributed to Kennedy and his brothers. Is that ethical journalism? Maybe. But its certainly tabloid-journalism.

What's with all the personal attacks? As one who likes to point out the bias found occasionally in ARS I find the name-calling repulsive. You can criticize the article without having to resort to middle-school type name-calling. /rant

So, now that I'm braced for the down-votes, I would like to see how his views changed from 4 years ago to today. My thinking on this is not to over-analyze Snowden, but to see what his motives are and more importantly how truthful he is being.

I think the gist here is that he believes in keeping certain policies secret except when that extends to innocent people or at least maybe just American innocents. I do not think his views have changed much since then other than to cast greater doubt against how far the big brother syndrome can go. No doubt most of us, especially at such a young age have two faces, the formal and casual ones. Entertaing both is quite healthy I think, but people also grow older, wiser, and more mature, and that also is healthy. If anything this is an interesting character study although I have to wonder if his rights were violated by having these logs published in the first place?

I just find it odd that a plan he thought out to the degree of going after his job just to get access to the documents would leave out as vital a thing as a getaway. Or that he wouldn't see that transiting through Moscow when you're known to be carrying stolen US classified documents wasn't the brightest of ideas.

Whatever the reason, there just seems something odd about it.

No, nothing odd at all. Snowden has stated quite plainly and reasonably that he went to Hong Kong because it was one of the few destinations that would not set off alarm bells at the NSA - exactly because it's not an obvious destination for asylum-seekers. Buying a ticket to, say, Iceland, would have terminated his career as a whistleblower before it started.

Amazing how people can be fascinated by incoherent chat babblings from years ago, yet not bother to check out the few minutes of actual interviews that Snowden himself has recently provided.

Would Ecuador have set them off? Or one of it's neighbours where he could have quietly driven over the border after arriving at his stated destination?

And it still doesn't explain how somebody who's a NSA contractor and has worked for the CIA thought going through Moscow was a good idea. Do you think Putin cares about his "Deadman's Switch" defense?

I find it unlikely this IRC user is Snowden. Not only are there too many contradictions between these logs and his recent statements and interviews, the difference in personality and maturity level is no where close to the same, and 4 years is a relatively short time. I don't buy it.

I just find it odd that a plan he thought out to the degree of going after his job just to get access to the documents would leave out as vital a thing as a getaway. Or that he wouldn't see that transiting through Moscow when you're known to be carrying stolen US classified documents wasn't the brightest of ideas.

Whatever the reason, there just seems something odd about it.

No, nothing odd at all. Snowden has stated quite plainly and reasonably that he went to Hong Kong because it was one of the few destinations that would not set off alarm bells at the NSA - exactly because it's not an obvious destination for asylum-seekers. Buying a ticket to, say, Iceland, would have terminated his career as a whistleblower before it started.

No, it's weird. Iceland is a popular vacation spot for Americans. Iceland is *not at all* a haven for asylum seekers; there are very few asylum seekers in Iceland.

Hong Kong, on the other hand, is *part of China*. That would set off far more alarm bells than going to Iceland or Sweden or Poland or the UK. (Although apparently no one really cared).

It is kind of interesting to see how, on the one hand, Snowden was very sophisticated about obtaining the information, distributing the information, and, at least to some extent, releasing the information. I think it's fair to say that he operated with a very high level of competence.

On the other hand, the whole HK/Iceland/Russia/Ecuador thing shows a very low level of understanding of how things were likely to play out. It's an odd dichotomy.

I just find it odd that a plan he thought out to the degree of going after his job just to get access to the documents would leave out as vital a thing as a getaway. Or that he wouldn't see that transiting through Moscow when you're known to be carrying stolen US classified documents wasn't the brightest of ideas.

Whatever the reason, there just seems something odd about it.

No, nothing odd at all. Snowden has stated quite plainly and reasonably that he went to Hong Kong because it was one of the few destinations that would not set off alarm bells at the NSA - exactly because it's not an obvious destination for asylum-seekers. Buying a ticket to, say, Iceland, would have terminated his career as a whistleblower before it started.

No, it's weird. Iceland is a popular vacation spot for Americans. Iceland is *not at all* a haven for asylum seekers; there are very few asylum seekers in Iceland.

Hong Kong, on the other hand, is *part of China*. That would set off far more alarm bells than going to Iceland or Sweden or Poland or the UK. (Although apparently no one really cared).

It is kind of interesting to see how, on the one hand, Snowden was very sophisticated about obtaining the information, distributing the information, and, at least to some extent, releasing the information. I think it's fair to say that he operated with a very high level of competence.

On the other hand, the whole HK/Iceland/Russia/Ecuador thing shows a very low level of understanding of how things were likely to play out. It's an odd dichotomy.

Iceland is where a lot of wikileaks people are and it would definetly set off alarm bells for a guy who lives in Hawaii to be flying to goddamn Iceland on the other side of the planet for a vacation. At least Hong Kong is in the neighborhood. I don't know if he could've planned it better, maybe somewhere like Croatia or West Africa would've been a more foolproof plan but this just seems like one of those things you can't know how it will play out until it does. I think it's also possible that he wanted to leave himself an "out" just in case he lost his nerve or something went wrong he could go back to work and nobody would be any wiser.

I just find it odd that a plan he thought out to the degree of going after his job just to get access to the documents would leave out as vital a thing as a getaway. Or that he wouldn't see that transiting through Moscow when you're known to be carrying stolen US classified documents wasn't the brightest of ideas.

Whatever the reason, there just seems something odd about it.

No, nothing odd at all. Snowden has stated quite plainly and reasonably that he went to Hong Kong because it was one of the few destinations that would not set off alarm bells at the NSA - exactly because it's not an obvious destination for asylum-seekers. Buying a ticket to, say, Iceland, would have terminated his career as a whistleblower before it started.

No, it's weird. Iceland is a popular vacation spot for Americans. Iceland is *not at all* a haven for asylum seekers; there are very few asylum seekers in Iceland.

Hong Kong, on the other hand, is *part of China*. That would set off far more alarm bells than going to Iceland or Sweden or Poland or the UK. (Although apparently no one really cared).

It is kind of interesting to see how, on the one hand, Snowden was very sophisticated about obtaining the information, distributing the information, and, at least to some extent, releasing the information. I think it's fair to say that he operated with a very high level of competence.

On the other hand, the whole HK/Iceland/Russia/Ecuador thing shows a very low level of understanding of how things were likely to play out. It's an odd dichotomy.

Iceland is where a lot of wikileaks people are and it would definetly set off alarm bells for a guy who lives in Hawaii to be flying to goddamn Iceland on the other side of the planet for a vacation. At least Hong Kong is in the neighborhood. I don't know if he could've planned it better, maybe somewhere like Croatia or West Africa would've been a more foolproof plan but this just seems like one of those things you can't know how it will play out until it does.

I don't know, a vacation trip to Peru seems more reasonable than Croatia. Also more "in the neighborhood" and crossing the border to Ecuador doesn't exactly involve much hassle

The only particularly attractive aspects of Hong Kong I could really see for Snowden were that it's more immediately familiar as a high-tech and urbane environment and he'd also probably be able to get a better internet connection. Now one thing I could imagine snowden wasn't doing given he was keen to keep his communications with reporters encrypted out of fear of them being intercepted, was to google things like "countries without extradition treaty with US." It is understandable that he would have progressed to a point where he felt it was less safe to research flight destinations suitability than it was to pick one based on what little most people would know off hand. The other source of information - besides what he could recall from memory - I could reasonably see him having used to help figure things out though would have been the reporter he was in contact with ahead of the leak.

Again though I would still argue for keeping Hanlon's Razor in mind and consider honestly bad advice more likely than anything else. Still, if someone had given me that advice and I found myself in his situation I'd probably second guess anything else that they seemed to think was a good idea - out of a question of competence as much as anything else. For example, if they perhaps told me I would do best flying from Moscow to Cuba I might also still be sitting in the airport terminal instead and wondering what to do next.

I just find it odd that a plan he thought out to the degree of going after his job just to get access to the documents would leave out as vital a thing as a getaway. Or that he wouldn't see that transiting through Moscow when you're known to be carrying stolen US classified documents wasn't the brightest of ideas.

Whatever the reason, there just seems something odd about it.

No, nothing odd at all. Snowden has stated quite plainly and reasonably that he went to Hong Kong because it was one of the few destinations that would not set off alarm bells at the NSA - exactly because it's not an obvious destination for asylum-seekers. Buying a ticket to, say, Iceland, would have terminated his career as a whistleblower before it started.

No, it's weird. Iceland is a popular vacation spot for Americans. Iceland is *not at all* a haven for asylum seekers; there are very few asylum seekers in Iceland.

Hong Kong, on the other hand, is *part of China*. That would set off far more alarm bells than going to Iceland or Sweden or Poland or the UK. (Although apparently no one really cared).

It is kind of interesting to see how, on the one hand, Snowden was very sophisticated about obtaining the information, distributing the information, and, at least to some extent, releasing the information. I think it's fair to say that he operated with a very high level of competence.

On the other hand, the whole HK/Iceland/Russia/Ecuador thing shows a very low level of understanding of how things were likely to play out. It's an odd dichotomy.

Iceland is where a lot of wikileaks people are and it would definetly set off alarm bells for a guy who lives in Hawaii to be flying to goddamn Iceland on the other side of the planet for a vacation. At least Hong Kong is in the neighborhood. I don't know if he could've planned it better, maybe somewhere like Croatia or West Africa would've been a more foolproof plan but this just seems like one of those things you can't know how it will play out until it does. I think it's also possible that he wanted to leave himself an "out" just in case he lost his nerve or something went wrong he could go back to work and nobody would be any wiser.

So what if it was halfway around the world?. Would it have been even more suspicious if he went to the UK since it's further from Hawaii than Iceland? If I was making what he was I'd be traveling all over the world, and I'm sure lots of highly paid NSA types do travel a lot.

And if Iceland has a lot of Wikileaks people, Hong Kong has a metric shitload of Chinese agents. I know which one I'd consider the biggest risk, assuming of course anyone suspected him to begin with. Otherwise each is a legit vacation destination for different reasons.

"The Ars IRC server doesn't log conversations, and there are no official transcripts of any discussions on that server. However, after learning that Snowden appeared to be an Ars user, we received chat logs from multiple longtime users who recalled IRC conversations with the user known as TheTrueHOOHA. That IRC user claimed he was the registered Ars user TheTrueHOOHA, who posted nearly 800 posts in Ars forums, including biographical information and photos that match Snowden."

What is the reason for not logging conversations or making official transcripts? It seems obvious that the implied point is that those conversations will not be reused in another context! So the fact that you received logs from other people really does not excuse your reusing the conversations. You are clearly sidestepping your own rules. I suppose you are entitled to change your own rules, but you are at best being hypocritical when you pretend that you are not.

I would suggest you relieve yourself of these complicated moral gymnastics by simply warning that all conversations will be logged. Then you can write this sort of story without feeling quite as slimy.

"The Ars IRC server doesn't log conversations, and there are no official transcripts of any discussions on that server. However, after learning that Snowden appeared to be an Ars user, we received chat logs from multiple longtime users who recalled IRC conversations with the user known as TheTrueHOOHA. That IRC user claimed he was the registered Ars user TheTrueHOOHA, who posted nearly 800 posts in Ars forums, including biographical information and photos that match Snowden."

What is the reason for not logging conversations or making official transcripts? It seems obvious that the implied point is that those conversations will not be reused in another context! So the fact that you received logs from other people really does not excuse your reusing the conversations. You are clearly sidestepping your own rules. I suppose you are entitled to change your own rules, but you are at best being hypocritical when you pretend that you are not.

I would suggest you relieve yourself of these complicated moral gymnastics by simply warning that all conversations will be logged. Then you can write this sort of story without feeling quite as slimy.

If you know jack shit about IRC, or have read even a healthy section of the comments then you would know that

1) Just about all IRC clients have built in logging capabilities, in many cases turned on by default.

2) Most IRC users do make logs.

So it pretty much goes without saying anything you say anywhere on IRC is being logged.

I admit to being surprised though at how long some folks said they kept them. I kept them long enough to check if there was anything I wanted to follow up on, ( a band or movie for example), but had missed in the babble of multiple conversations.